Abortion doctor shot and killed

Earlier today, Dr. George Tiller, one of the nation’s few providers of late-term abortions despite decades of protests and attacks, was shot and killed in a church where he was serving as an usher. While police have not yet released a motive for the shooting, Dr. Tiller’s violent death was the latest in a string of shootings and bombings over two decades directed against abortion clinics, doctors and staff. Tiller himself has long been a target of violence and harassment at the hands of anti-abortion protesters. In 1993, a protester shot Tiller in both arms, and his clinic was bombed in 1985. More recently Tiller reportedly asked federal prosecutors to step up investigations of vandalism and other threats against the clinic out of fear that the incidents were increasing and that Tiller’s safety was in jeopardy.

President Barack Obama said he was “shocked and outraged” by the murder. “However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence,” he said.

Without knowing for certain the motive of the individual who shot and killed Dr. Tiller, I’ll just say that if the individual is in fact a pro-life protester who wanted to make a point, he certainly picked a horrible way of doing so. Violence is never an acceptable form of protest, and what’s more, it seems more than a little hypocritical that someone so concerned with preserving life would resort to taking a life. After all, two wrongs certainly don’t make a right.


Related Articles

8 thoughts on “Abortion doctor shot and killed

  1. “After all, two wrongs certainly don’t make a right.”
    Are you admitting abortion is wrong?

    I am certainly not advocating going out and shooting abortion doctors, but consider this scenario. A gunmen is picking off kids on the playground and you have the ability to shoot the gunman to get him to stop. Would you? I think that’s the mindset here. Would you try to stop a Nazi soldier from turning on the oven?

    Again, not saying it is right. Our government has determined abortion is ok, so it would be wrong to administer vigilante justice.

  2. Zach, Zach, Zach. He is not a pro-life protester, but an anti-abortionist. Pro-life people value life. Get a grip.

  3. My comment didn’t all post.

    Zach get a grip. You make it sound like all pro-lifers would do this. He is not a pro-lifer nor do we know that he is a right wing nutjob! Just because he is an anti-abortion nutjob doesn’t automatically make him from the right. There are people on the left that don’t support abortion. Just because you as a liberal are fine with it, doesn’t make it all encompassing of those on the left with you. Even those far on the left!

    Dr. Tiller’s murder is an unjustifiable act no matter what.

    I am reading on other sites people quoting that you must be anti-death penalty and anti-war to be pro-life not just anti-abortion.

    Wrong!!! The good lord said suffer the wicked not to live,, not the lil children,,, and yes I know he says “vengeance is mine” so ok, suffer the wicked not to live but do so “without” hate in your heart. This was the “sin” Jesus spoke of when he said he without sin cast the first stone…the son of god did “not” mean go against gods word and suffer the wicked to live. Yet fools like you do and will… yes I can be pro “life” and not anti death penalty…It still fits with the word of god.

    We all are intelligent enough to understand that one radical anti-abortion nutjob just as one errant service member, one wacky Christian or Jew, one Republican, one Conservative is more than enough for the liberal media to froth at the mouth and demand that all of them be treated as dangerous potential terrorists.

    Tim Mcveigh, Charles Manson, Both DC Snipers and Jim Adkisson, to name a few, would agree with you.

    The doctor was a murderer as well but this is not the way to do things. The laws need to be changed; there is no room in our society for vigilante justice no matter how much we might like Charles Bronson in “Death Wish”.

    It’s too bad that they won’t protect a baby the way they protect a murder or a common criminal. The late term abortions are not done on fetus’s that had just been conceived but babies that are viable human beings. They are close to term. Obama also believes in murdering babies and that is why he will call anyone that wants to save a baby’s life some sort of radical.

  4. forgot, explain to me how stopping a Nazi soldier from “turning on the oven” is comparable to shooting an unarmed man at a church.

    As to your question, “Are you admitting abortion is wrong?” my answer is this:

    I support a woman’s right to choose without reservation, because I believe women should be allowed to make choices for themselves when it comes to their reproductive issues. However, I don’t think abortion is a good thing, and in an ideal world it would be as infrequently used as possible.

    As to JeffN’s comments, I’ll just say that I made it very clear that no matter what the shooter’s motivation is for doing what he did, violence should never be an acceptable form of protest.

  5. Zach, I always found the position you hold on abortion to be the most aggregious, the “I don’t believe in it, but I’ll turn a blind eye to it” position. It’s the equivalent to pretending not to hear someone calling for help as you walk down the street and do nothing. And it’s the same line more moderate Dems have been using for years — “safe, legal, and rare.” Well, if there is no moral question there, why should it be rare?

    I wish liberals more often held the belief in personal rights, allowing people to make choices for themselves without butting their noses in. You know like school choice, health care, rights of property owners, rights of business owners to run their business as they see fit, and the right to keep more of our own money to spend as we see fit. I’m all for your philosophy on personal rights “without reservation” when it doesn’t involve the loss of human life.

  6. Why do you only choose the type of philosophy in this one instance?

  7. forgot, I’m not advocating turning a blind eye to the issue; I’m firmly opposed to partial-birth abortion, and I’d like to see more done to promote alternatives to abortion such as adoption. Further, I don’t think I’ve ever denied there’s a moral issue when it comes to abortion. Am I morally torn on the issue? Absolutely, but ultimately I believe women should at least have the ability to make the choice for themselves, however much I may disagree with their ultimate decision.

    However, since we’re talking about egregious positions on issues, let’s talk about the disconnect between a Republican Party that has historically advocated for a smaller government that stays out of the lives of Americans as much as possible sticking its nose into issues like abortion and same-sex marriage as much as possible. If the Republican Party (and like-minded conservatives) really want our government to be less intrusive, then why not be consistent in that message? You can’t be for less government intrusion into the lives of citizens while advocating for government intrusion on the issue of the reproductive rights of women; the two just aren’t consistent.

  8. “…the “I don’t believe in it, but I’ll turn a blind eye to it” position. It’s the equivalent to pretending not to hear someone calling for help as you walk down the street and do nothing.” NO it’s not. Not at all.

    Here’s how I live with MY “I don’t believe in it, but I’m convinced it’s constitutional” position: 1) My morals guide me personally, however 2) My morals have very little to do with what the Constitution and the Supreme Court says about liberty and justice. So just because I personally dislike abortion and prefer life; does not mean I can’t be pro-choice and defend the freedoms protected by the Constitution.

    So, I have no blind eye. In fact it is the many Pro-lifers that turn a blind eye to the Constitution and a women’s right over her own body.

    “…the disconnect between a Republican Party that has historically advocated for a smaller government that stays out of the lives of Americans as much as possible sticking its nose into issues like abortion and same-sex marriage as much as possible.” BINGO!!! Spot-on Zach!!!

    I suppose as often as I get disgusted by soo so much political pettyness, I stick around because I still have hope that I can help wake up just one “conservative” to the fact that we often stand elbow to elbow with people that feel that the Government must take their own morals as law. NO. We already have a Constitution thank you very much. Please keep your morals out of my life.

Comments are closed.